That all is not the point of this post. I've decided on my ultimate 'demand', my goal, my future state of being from which I can look back on the Occupation and say, wow, we really did it.
I'm convinced that, whatever might come after, the right first step is democratic control of the political process, democratic regulations on the media, and economic democracy within firms.
I read a little bit of Lenin writing on Marx. Two things strike me boldly, upon reflection on the topics of State and Revolution. First, that military force is no longer comprised of 'men at arms'. Operational control of a military as sophistocated as the US' is practically impossible by any imaginable revolutionary force, short of the generals and admirals themselves. I'm not holding out hope for a Revolutionary Occupying Force to which the military will deflect. I know, it sort of happened in Libya. I'm not saying violent revolution is impossible, I'm just saying it doesn't sound practical.
Second is the fact that there's no guarantee that a Revolutionary Occupying Force, like the current group in Libya, will form a government in any way preferable to the one we have. Look how things turned out for Russia with the Bolshevics in 1918. Lenin, the people's revolutionary, the champion of True Marxism, got off to a flying start with the murders and the censorship and the forced single party government. Classy!
No, I don't see revolution from without. I have seen the arguments, and I'm not buying the idea that a people's revolution from without, whether it be a Marxist proletariate taking over the State and all means of production in it in the name of 'the people', or an anarchist move towards total destruction of state power. I'm really thinking that revolution comes from within. Once there are practical democratic controls over government and industry (same thing), paired with fair flows of accurate information, then perhaps we can vote the state out of existence by uniting the economy with people's needs, one piece at a time.
I'm talking about General Assemblies at every level acting as 'committees' to vet out and pass along legislation. Keep legislative debate and voting procedures. But nothing gets in to be *considered* - in city hall, the state capitol, and Washington - without the okay of the people. Special interest legislation, earmarks, pork? No chance. In terms of time, it's not actually that impractical, given how much time bills spend in committee already.
Create one source (or several, limited) for factual information. Ban politically persuasive advertisements. Sure, it might not pass a supreme court challenge, but personally I think such a ban would uphold the people's first ammendment rights more than harm them. The 'press' can print anything they want...we simply demand that they print it to be published in the same place as everyone else. Why should big money entitle you to a wider audience and higher production value, when it comes to political participation?
And that right there is where it really boils down to. People have a right to have money. There's nothing wrong with being filthy rich. But political participation should not be for sale, not in the form of public speech and media, and not in the form of special access to the legislative process.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
No comments:
Post a Comment